Bengaluru: A consumer dispute over a cosmetic treatment has resulted in a Bengaluru woman receiving a refund and compensation after a consumer commission found that a clinic could not promise specific results and later withdraw that assurance. The IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed VLCC Ltd to pay the woman a total of ₹1.93 lakh, including a refund and compensation, after she complained that a cosmetic procedure failed to deliver the promised results.

Woman approached clinic for pigmentation treatment

The case began in March 2025 when the woman, identified as Sultana in the report, approached a clinic in connection with facial pigmentation. During the consultation, she was reportedly recommended a package involving ENNO Peeling and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) sessions.

The clinic also recommended CoolSculpting, a non-invasive fat-reduction procedure. The woman was allegedly assured that the treatment would provide effective results.

She subsequently underwent CoolSculpting on her upper abdomen at a cost of ₹82,000. The procedure was financed through VLCC’s partner FIBE under an agreement signed on March 14, 2025.

Second procedure increased her payment to ₹1.6 lakh

According to the complaint, when the treatment began on April 5, the technician allegedly told the woman that treating only the upper abdomen could result in an incomplete or uneven appearance.

She was therefore advised to undergo the procedure on her lower abdomen as well. Acting on the advice, she paid another ₹82,000, taking her total payment for the two procedures to ₹1.64 lakh.

The second payment was also financed through the same facility. The woman was reportedly assured that visible results would appear within 90 days, by the end of May 2025.

Promised results did not materialise

However, after the promised period passed, the woman said she saw no improvement. When she raised the issue with the clinic, it allegedly acknowledged her concern and assured her of another session.

The repeat session was reportedly never provided.

The dispute was further complicated by a ₹12,240 loan processing fee that the woman said she discovered had been charged. After she withheld an EMI payment in July 2025 in protest, she allegedly faced pressure and threats of legal action.

She subsequently tried to resolve the matter through emails, personal visits and two complaints to the National Consumer Helpline. According to the report, these efforts did not resolve the dispute. A legal notice issued on November 1 was also returned undelivered.

Consumer commission finds deficiency in service

The woman filed a consumer complaint on December 17, 2025, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

VLCC, in its defence, maintained that the treatments had been carried out according to accepted cosmetology practices. The company also argued that the woman had voluntarily chosen the procedures and had signed consent forms acknowledging that results could vary.

The company further contended that there was no expert opinion establishing negligence.

The consumer commission, however, noted that VLCC had not denied promising results within 90 days. It observed that while cosmetic procedures naturally involve biological variations, a consumer cannot be commercially induced with a specific promise and then be left without a remedy when that promise is not fulfilled.

Commission orders refund and compensation

The commission also observed that after the first procedure did not produce the expected outcome, the clinic allegedly marketed another, more expensive procedure instead of providing a suitable remedy or refund.

The bench, comprising president Ramachandra MS and members Nandini H Kumbhar and Savitha Airani, directed VLCC Ltd to refund ₹1.70 lakh.

In addition to the refund, the commission awarded ₹10,000 for deficiency in service, ₹3,000 towards mental agony and hardship, and ₹10,000 towards litigation expenses.

This brought the total amount ordered by the commission to ₹1.93 lakh.

Consumer rights in cosmetic services

The ruling highlights the importance of clear communication and responsible marketing in cosmetic and aesthetic services. While treatment outcomes can vary from person to person, the commission’s observations underline that businesses should be cautious about making specific promises regarding results, particularly when consumers are making significant financial commitments.

The case also highlights the importance of consumers retaining treatment records, payment documents, consent forms and correspondence when a dispute arises.

For the Bengaluru woman, the commission’s order provided a financial remedy after the promised cosmetic results failed to materialise and her attempts to resolve the matter directly with the clinic did not succeed.